Donald Fehr and Gary Bettman will not be directly involved in today's meeting between six NHL owners and a select group of NHL players, but don't jump to a conclusion assuming that both sides will suddenly find some common ground with their leaders out of the room.

Bettman has long been the player's whipping boy. They actually believe that he wants to ruin the game and that he's the ultimate puppet master pulling the owner's strings. Meanwhile the NHL is certain that Fehr is not telling the players the truth, even though many of them have been present during most of the negotiations.

The lockout was asinine to begin with, but it's becoming more laughable by the day. It would be great if today's meeting will start an avalanche of positive negotiations, or as Steve Burton reported continue on the "significant progress" they allegedly made yesterday.

We'll see.

Many have asked if Burton is legit or not, and I've only ever spoke to him once in my life so I can't say. Others have said he has a good track record, so you never know. It wouldn't surprise me if Jeremy Jacobs leaked it to him, since Jacobs has been getting ripped by some other Boston media lately.

I noticed many dismissed Burton's report as Eklund-like, which is a real slap in the face, but I think many are so jaded by this debacle of a lockout that no one wants to believe they'd be smart enough to actually make some progress.

I did make some phone calls tonight, and I sensed that all the players want is to see the owners bend a bit on some of their demands, and if that happens then hockey will return.

The owners won't budge off of their HRR split of 50/50, but they don't be surprised to see them bend on some of their contractual demands.

The players are adamant they don't want a cap on contract length. Even though only 23 players have contracts longer than seven years, they are against a max salary. I'm hearing the owners would bend on that as long as they had their HRR in place. Do they really need to protect the owners who are dumb enough to hand out contracts longer than that?

The players want the entry level contracts to remain at three years. The owners are looking at two, because often they sign guys who have no chance of making their team. I'd suggest they keep entry level deals for 1st-3rd rounders at 3 years, but allow 4th-7th rounders, and free agents ELC to only be 2 years.

Here is a quick look at how many players who were drafted between 1998-2007 and played at least 200 games. It is too early to accurately calculate 2008-2012.

Draft year

First three rounds

4th to 9th rounds

1998

39

21

1999

26

14

2000

31

13

2001

33

25

2002

35

11

2003

45

20

2004

32

20

First three rounds

4th to 7th rounds

2005

28

13

2006

33

5

2007

19

4

In 2007 I had to project a few players to get them to the 200 game mark. Guys like P.K Subban who has only played 160 games, but I think it is safe to assume he'll make it to 200.

In the above 10-year span, 321 players from the first 3 rounds played at least 200 games, while 146 between rounds 4 to 9 made it. Would it be that outrageous of an offer to suggest that players drafted in rounds 4 thru 7 only get two-year entry level contracts?

I'm hearing more and more that the players just want to see the owners concede a few of their demands. If that happens we could see a deal transpire before this entire year gets wiped out. Dare to dream fans, dare to dream.

DAY TWO...SOCIALIZING

Yesterday we raised $2,000 for the Christmas Bureau. A huge thank you to Bruce for his generous bid on the Oil Kings package.

One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor

There was a time when oil fans debated when, if and who the oilers would contribute talent to Canada's olympic hockey effort. Ahh, those were the days. But we must look to the future lest we be buried in the past. A future that just might include the young guns playing a feature role in the next lock-out. Just imagine, instead of Sid we could have RNH standing shoulder to shoulder with Hallsey behind Fehr. As soon as Nuge gets that old glenoid labrum tightened up...

Do they really need to protect the owners who are dumb enough to hand out contracts longer than that?

Yes, yes we do. That's the #1 issue when it comes to why the league has issues. Owners being stupid.

As a side note, whoever decided to play music before each segment on 1260 deserves a raise.

Couldn't agree more. HRR is not the sticking point. Owners want to lock down the contracts so the players have no leverage whatsoever until they have essentially played out the best years of their careers. And if you think owners aren't dumb and greedy, take a look at a hockey league that, rather than grow organically in markets that love and support the sport, sell franchises in places that have never seen snow, to guys with more money than brains, who then wonder why sports dollars in their cities are going to NASCAR and WNBA, and then want the players to pay for their stupidity.

"Do they really need to protect the owners who are dumb enough to hand out contracts longer than that?"

What's really interesting about this is that it's the owners who are protecting themselves... from themselves.

The world in which that is both possible and necessary certainly seems counterintuitive from a "rational actor" standpoint (why would you need to create an external impediment to protect your own interest, wouldn't you do this already?) and yet it seems fairly common that regulative, normative and customary impediments on one's own actions can and do often serve one's own interests.

"I'd suggest they keep entry level deals for 1st-3rd rounders at 3 years, but allow 4th-7th rounders, and free agents ELC to only be 2 years. "

This seems like a no-brainer now that I've heard it... has it been floated by anyone involved in a CBA ever? I wonder what the counter-arguments would be.

Just to play Devil's advocate, Bettman's ill-advised expansion into sketchy markets has provided about 150 players with million-plus income each year instead of 25 bucks an hour at the Chrysler plant. Growing the game organically is a great and noble thought but I don't see 6 realistic new markets in Canada. Southern Ontario is controlled by Maple Leaf Sports, Montreal by Molsons, BC lower mainland by weed, Saskatchewan is too rural... I fully understand players dislike of Gary but they should credit their lifestyle at least partly to him.

I've said it plenty of times and I'll say it again, the NHL is a competitive business who's business is to be competitive. As long as there are the have's and the have not's, the have's will spend all they can in order to bring a championship to their city and their fans. In the long run certain contracts will hurt the franchises that sign them but in the meantime, if a team has the capabilities to attract a player, they are doing a diservice to their fans if they don't do all they can to bring in a winner.

So, yes, the owners need to be protected from themselves, utter stupidity or not. JMO

I imagine the meeting will end and Crosby will say some stock bullsh*t about hoping progress gets made. Daly will speak for the Owners and say he hopes this generates traction, and then after Christmas they cancel the season.

That's how I see it all playing out in the best case scenario.

Worst case scenario: This meeting lasts 2 hours and Sidney Crosby comes out demanding a trade, the Union galvanizes and becomes even less reasonable, we lose this season and part of next.

Couldn't agree more. HRR is not the sticking point. Owners want to lock down the contracts so the players have no leverage whatsoever until they have essentially played out the best years of their careers. And if you think owners aren't dumb and greedy, take a look at a hockey league that, rather than grow organically in markets that love and support the sport, sell franchises in places that have never seen snow, to guys with more money than brains, who then wonder why sports dollars in their cities are going to NASCAR and WNBA, and then want the players to pay for their stupidity.

I don't think it's stupid to hand out long term contracts. It just creates an environment where everybody feels like they have to start doing it. Of course DiPietro was not a smart contract, but many of the the front-loaded ones were probably smart signings for that team. Not for the league. They become the norm very quickly, as you have to be able to match what team X gave. They are risky, but you have to take risks to win. So if everyone wants to try to win, everybody has to take big risks - but only one can win each year. So I just think it creates a bad environment. I'm so sick of the 'save the owners from themselves' shtick. It's what any one of the players would do if he was an owner, just like he does as a player - anything to win.

I don't think it's stupid to hand out long term contracts. It just creates an environment where everybody feels like they have to start doing it. Of course DiPietro was not a smart contract, but many of the the front-loaded ones were probably smart signings for that team. Not for the league. They become the norm very quickly, as you have to be able to match what team X gave. They are risky, but you have to take risks to win. So if everyone wants to try to win, everybody has to take big risks - but only one can win each year. So I just think it creates a bad environment. I'm so sick of the 'save the owners from themselves' shtick. It's what any one of the players would do if he was an owner, just like he does as a player - anything to win.

I'm kind of surprised that players want longer ELCs. I realize it adds a small safety net to the dudes who are slower to develop or just kind of borderline players, but it decreases the opportunity for more money at a younger age as well. And just because you're off an NHL ELC doesn't mean you can't still have an AHL contract if you're struggling a little.

On the issue of long term contracts-- why not simply make it that any NTC/NMC in a player's contract ends when that player hits his 32nd birthday, but all cap hits remain with a team (and the team has to still pay the player) for any contract that carries the player past his 40th birthday whether he plays the season or not? GMs can then still hand out moronic 15 year contracts but they can at least trade or demote the players if they need to... and the players get paid

On the issue of long term contracts-- why not simply make it that any NTC/NMC in a player's contract ends when that player hits his 32nd birthday, but all cap hits remain with a team (and the team has to still pay the player) for any contract that carries the player past his 40th birthday whether he plays the season or not? GMs can then still hand out moronic 15 year contracts but they can at least trade or demote the players if they need to... and the players get paid

How about this idea,

In a trade, the teams that gave the long term contract keep the difference of the total cap hit of the contract, the receiving team gets
the newly calculated cap hit based on term and contract remaining.

ex.
player X gets a 10 year 93mil from team A(15,14,13,12,11,10,9,5,3,1)
= 9.3mil cap hit

player X gets traded after 6 years to team B
has 14mil left on contract (9,5,3,1)
= 4.5mil cap hit

Team A still has to add 4.8mil to their cap for the remainder of the original contract.

this idea accomplishes two things,
it makes it easier to trade these dumb LTC,
and it punishes teams for handing them out.

In a trade, the teams that gave the long term contract keep the difference of the total cap hit of the contract, the receiving team gets
the newly calculated cap hit based on term and contract remaining.

ex.
player X gets a 10 year 93mil from team A(15,14,13,12,11,10,9,5,3,1)
= 9.3mil cap hit

player X gets traded after 6 years to team B
has 14mil left on contract (9,5,3,1)
= 4.5mil cap hit

Team A still has to add 4.8mil to their cap for the remainder of the original contract.

this idea accomplishes two things,
it makes it easier to trade these dumb LTC,
and it punishes teams for handing them out.

player X gets traded after 6 years to team B has (18mil) left on contract (9,5,3,1) = 4.5mil cap hit

Just to play Devil's advocate, Bettman's ill-advised expansion into sketchy markets has provided about 150 players with million-plus income each year instead of 25 bucks an hour at the Chrysler plant. Growing the game organically is a great and noble thought but I don't see 6 realistic new markets in Canada. Southern Ontario is controlled by Maple Leaf Sports, Montreal by Molsons, BC lower mainland by weed, Saskatchewan is too rural... I fully understand players dislike of Gary but they should credit their lifestyle at least partly to him.

I really don't get these ad hominem attacks on the players, insisting that they would all "be working at the Chrysler plant" if they were't playing hockey, as if that somehow invalidates their bargaining position. I have made the aquaintance of three NHL players post hockey - one is an executive in a multi national company, pulling down 6 figures, one is a successful real estate agent in town, and one is a medical doctor. I also have a friend whose MBA/corporate lawyer son is in a halfway house after 2 months in rehab for cocaine addiction. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing, except I don't think NHL players are all knuckle dragging mouth breathers, nor do I think all corporate owner types are Ayn Randian supermen. I do think using a lockout to squeeze players for concessions is a cheap and ill-conceived bargaining ploy, because it alienates the very people that actually pay the salaries on the 50- 200$ installment plan - us guys, the fans - who write on these sites and take this stuff seriously, whether we should or not.

I'm kind of surprised that players want longer ELCs. I realize it adds a small safety net to the dudes who are slower to develop or just kind of borderline players, but it decreases the opportunity for more money at a younger age as well. And just because you're off an NHL ELC doesn't mean you can't still have an AHL contract if you're struggling a little.

Yeah, that ELC reduction seems to me a very good thing for both sides. But since it came from the owners, the players automatically assume it is bad.

The 5 year contract length limit is a very good thing for the players. The owners have to shell out real bucks (not "salary cap" bucks) to players over the lifetime of a contract.

I really don't get these ad hominem attacks on the players, insisting that they would all "be working at the Chrysler plant" if they were't playing hockey, as if that somehow invalidates their bargaining position. I have made the aquaintance of three NHL players post hockey - one is an executive in a multi national company, pulling down 6 figures, one is a successful real estate agent in town, and one is a medical doctor. I also have a friend whose MBA/corporate lawyer son is in a halfway house after 2 months in rehab for cocaine addiction. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing, except I don't think NHL players are all knuckle dragging mouth breathers, nor do I think all corporate owner types are Ayn Randian supermen. I do think using a lockout to squeeze players for concessions is a cheap and ill-conceived bargaining ploy, because it alienates the very people that actually pay the salaries on the 50- 200$ installment plan - us guys, the fans - who write on these sites and take this stuff seriously, whether we should or not.

So you're saying that the money players made in the NHL offered them great opportunities later in their life?

I really don't get these ad hominem attacks on the players, insisting that they would all "be working at the Chrysler plant" if they were't playing hockey, as if that somehow invalidates their bargaining position. I have made the aquaintance of three NHL players post hockey - one is an executive in a multi national company, pulling down 6 figures, one is a successful real estate agent in town, and one is a medical doctor. I also have a friend whose MBA/corporate lawyer son is in a halfway house after 2 months in rehab for cocaine addiction. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing, except I don't think NHL players are all knuckle dragging mouth breathers, nor do I think all corporate owner types are Ayn Randian supermen. I do think using a lockout to squeeze players for concessions is a cheap and ill-conceived bargaining ploy, because it alienates the very people that actually pay the salaries on the 50- 200$ installment plan - us guys, the fans - who write on these sites and take this stuff seriously, whether we should or not.

The three hockey players you mention I think is an awesome account of people of full value of making what they have. The Realtor & Bus Exec are entreprenuers & must work hard & risk lots to get what they have. They are full value of what they have. The Doctor in my opinion should be paid Ovechkin & Crosby money because they are the real true superstars in the real world. Pro athletes, I'm sorry, how much more do they need? How much is enough money? How much more of 50% of 3.3 billion dollars split between 700 of them with guaranteed contracts assuring them of that slice of the $$$ pie is enough? No risk, score 30-40 goals & then the next year score 10 but guaranteed that big slice of the pie because of that covetted guaranteed contract. I dont like the leagues lockout style & I dont like the players entitlement to endless riches because they play a game. Sorry, there is no defending anyone in this and its amazing of where to begin to fathom this chronic case of mass stupidity meeting in that boardroom of New York today.

I imagine the meeting will end and Crosby will say some stock bullsh*t about hoping progress gets made. Daly will speak for the Owners and say he hopes this generates traction, and then after Christmas they cancel the season.

That's how I see it all playing out in the best case scenario.

Worst case scenario: This meeting lasts 2 hours and Sidney Crosby comes out demanding a trade, the Union galvanizes and becomes even less reasonable, we lose this season and part of next.

Yeah, that ELC reduction seems to me a very good thing for both sides. But since it came from the owners, the players automatically assume it is bad.

The 5 year contract length limit is a very good thing for the players. The owners have to shell out real bucks (not "salary cap" bucks) to players over the lifetime of a contract.

Well, it's good for the average player because they don't get screwed on HRR thanks to those front-loaded contracts. It's less good for the superstars who receive those massive front-loaded contracts because they don't get huge paydays right off the bat (comparatively to what they can receive with super long contracts).

How about Kevin Lowe + Eager + Potter? (it is a fantasy trade after all). Sid the Kid is a fantastic hockey player, but he's turned into an entitled little pr!ck over the years. Combine that with his injury history, and the luck of the Oilers and I honestly can't say I'd want him in place of any of our young players (multiples of whom would actually be required for a trade). I also don't think he has the attitude to lead a team through the playoffs.

How about Kevin Lowe + Eager + Potter? (it is a fantasy trade after all). Sid the Kid is a fantastic hockey player, but he's turned into an entitled little pr!ck over the years. Combine that with his injury history, and the luck of the Oilers and I honestly can't say I'd want him in place of any of our young players (multiples of whom would actually be required for a trade). I also don't think he has the attitude to lead a team through the playoffs.